Mobile Networks and Applications

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 281–291 | Cite as

New and Improved Architectures for Montgomery Modular Multiplication

  • M. Sudhakar
  • R. V. Kamala
  • M. B. Srinivas


In this paper an improved Montgomery multiplier, based on modified four-to-two carry-save adders (CSAs) to reduce critical path delay, is presented. Instead of implementing four-to-two CSA using two levels of carry-save logic, authors propose a modified four-to-two CSA using only one level of carry-save logic taking advantage of pre-computed input values. Also, a new bit-sliced, unified and scalable Montgomery multiplier architecture, applicable for both RSA and ECC (Elliptic Curve Cryptography), is proposed. In the existing word-based scalable multiplier architectures, some processing elements (PEs) do not perform useful computation during the last pipeline cycle when the precision is not equal to an exact multiple of the word size, like in ECC. This intrinsic limitation requires a few extra clock cycles to operate on operand lengths which are not powers of 2. The proposed architecture eliminates the need for extra clock cycles by reconfiguring the design at bit-level and hence can operate on any operand length, limited only by memory and control constraints. It requires 2∼15% fewer clock cycles than the existing architectures for key lengths of interest in RSA and 11∼18% for binary fields and 10∼14% for prime fields in case of ECC. An FPGA implementation of the proposed architecture shows that it can perform 1,024-bit modular exponentiation in about 15 ms which is better than that by the existing multiplier architectures.


Montgomery modular multiplication RSA ECC carry save adders reconfigurable multiplier scalable multiplier 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Stallings W (1995) Network and internetwork security principles and practise. Prentice Hall, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Menezes A, van Oorschot P, Vanstone S (1997) Handbook of applied cryptography. CRC Press, Florida, USAMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rivest RL, Shamir A, Adleman L (1978) A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems. Comm ACM 21(2):120–126MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diffie W, Hellman ME (1976) New directions in cryptography. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 22:644–654MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Institute for Standards and Technology (2000) Digital Signature Standard (DSS). FIPS PUB 186–2, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Menezes AJ (1993) Elliptic curve public key cryptosystems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MAMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koblitz N (1987) Elliptic curve cryptosystems. Math Comput 48(177):203–209, JanuaryMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miller VS (1986) Uses of elliptic curves in cryptography. In: Williams HC (ed) Advances in cryptology—CRYPTO ’85, vol. 218 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp 417–426Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lenstra AK, Verheul ER (2000) Selecting cryptographic key sizes. In: Imai H, Zheng Y (eds), Public Key Cryptography—PKC 2000, vol. 1751 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer , Berlin, Germany, pp 446–465Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2002) Cryptographic toolkit Jun. 2002, pp 83–84 [online]. Available:
  11. 11.
    Montgomery PL (1985) Modular multiplication without trail division. Math Comput 44(70):519–521MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim YS, Kang WS, Choi JR. Implementation of 1024-bit modular processor for RSA cryptosystem’.
  13. 13.
    Bunimov V, Schimmler M, Tolg B (2002) A complexity-effective version of Montgomery’s algorithm. Presented at the Workshop on Complexity Effective Designs (WECD02), May 2002Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McIvor C, McLoone M, McCanny JV (2004) Modified Montgomery modular multiplication and RSA exponentiation techniques. IEE Proc Comput Digit Tech 151(6):402–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sudhakar M, Kamala RV, Srinivas MB (2007) An efficient, reconfigurable and unified Montgomery multiplier architecture. Proceedings. IEEE/ACM VLSI Design 2007, Bangalore, India, January 6–10, pp 750–755Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Savas E, Tenca AF, Koc CK (2000) A scalable and unified multiplier architecture for finite fields GF(p) and GF(2m). Proceedings of CHES, pp 281–296Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Großschädl J (2001) A bit-serial unified multiplier architecture for finite fields GF(p) and GF(2m). Proc. CHES 2001, August, pp 202–218Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Savas E, Tenca AF, Ciftcibasi ME, Koc CK (2004) Multiplier architectures for GF(p) and GF(2n). IEE Proc Comput Digit Tech 151(2):147–160, MarchCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tenca AF, Koc CK (2003) A scalable architecture for modular multiplication based on Montgomery’s algorithm. IEEE Trans Comput 52(9):1215–1221, SeptCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harris D, Krishnamurthy R, Anders M, Mathew S, Hsu S (2005) An improved unified scalable radix-2 Montgomery multiplier. IEEE (ARITH-17), pp 172–178Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Certicom Research, Recommended Elliptic Curve Domain Parameters,
  22. 22.
    NIST DSS Standard, Basicrypt—Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Benchmark Suite benchmark,
  23. 23.
    Virtex™-E 1.8 V Field Programmable Gate Arrays,
  24. 24.
    Virtex-II Pro and Virtex-II Pro X Platform FPGAs: Complete Data Sheet http://www.xilinx.xom/bvdocs/publications/ds083.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for VLSI and Embedded System TechnologiesInternational Institute of Information TechnologyHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations